Q. Yes. Do you mind telling me and the Tribunal just what was the disciplinary action that was taken against the notaries who handled those transfers at that time in Nuernberg?
A. Well, from my memory, I can tell you the following. Disciplinary investigations were conducted against notaries who had certified these transfers of property by force, these blackmail transfers of property. The then president of the district court was somehow involved in that affair, and then he was transferred to another place.
Q. Yes. Do you remember, I have not quite learned, and maybe you do not remember, what happened to the notaries? Were they discharged? Were they fined or what happened to the notaries who took those transfers?
A. I do not remember that any more today. I do not know.
Q. And I believe you testified in answer to Dr. Kuboschok that you felt forced to tell Dr. Doebig that there was no emergency administrative action that could be taken; that this was a matter which lay within the jurisdiction of the judges of the courts in Nuernberg, and that they would have to take what action was necessary. Am I stating it about right? If not, you tell me.
A. Yes, I replied to Dr. Doebig that if as he told me the transfers of real estate had been achieved by blackmail, then every judge would know that on the basis of such contracts, they were not allowed to register them in the real estate register.
Q. That was in 1938, of course?
A. Yes.
Q. On June 30, 1940, Reichgesetzblatt for 1940, Part 1, page 907; the German law was extended in German judicial procedural to the annexed Eastern territories. Would that be correct? Would you like to see a copy of the law for that date?
A. May I ask you to show it to me?
Q. Surely. I ask that NI-1612, which the witness presently has before him, be identified as Prosecution Exhibit Number 519.
That is, on its face, signed by Dr. Guertner, Reich Minister of Justice, and Frick, Reich Minister of the Interior, dated Berlin, 13 June 1940; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Of course the document speaks for itself. Generally it refers to extending German law into the Incorporated Eastern Territories. Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is to say, it concerns the organization of the courts.
Q: Yes. You knew about that decree, I guess, did you not, Dr. Schlegelberger?
A: I suppose so, yes.
Q: Thank you, My continental geography is not very good. Maybe you can help me. Eupen, E-U-P-E-N-- nor my pronunciation -- Halmedy, M-A-L-M-E-D-Y -- and I won' t try this next one: Moresnet, M-O-R-E-S N-E-T. They are districts in either Belgium or France, are they not?
A: Belgium.
Q: I ask that Document NG-1613 be marked for identification as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 520. Would you give that to Dr. Schlegelber, please?
(The document is offered to Dr. Schlegelberger) That is an order which shows on its face that its signed:
Reich Minister of Justice, By Proxy, Dr. Schlegelberger; and Reich Minister of the Interior, By Proxy, Pfundtner; and it is dated the 29 July 1940. The substance of it is, "By virtue of the decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor of May 23, 1940, for the implementation of the decree concerning the reunion of the districts of Eupen, Halmedy, and Moresnet with the German Reich--Is that the way you find the document?
A: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you going to give the Tribunal copies of this document.
UR. LAFOLLETTE: I thought they were distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not received them.
(The document is distributed to the Tribunal)
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q: That decree went not to the East but into Belgium, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have anything to say about the circumstances under which you signed that, Dr. Schlegelberger, or do you remember?
A: I remember only as the introduction to that decree says, "By virtue of the decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor for the implementation of the decree concerning the reunion of these former German territories with the Reich": AND THAT WE, by virtue of the directive of policy which the Fuehrer had issued, had to issue this decree.
Q: Yes. Now I believe you testified on direct examination that you, yourself, had no anti-semitic feelings, as such, against the Jews as a race; that also you sought justice rather than to classify people as groups. That, as I gather, was right?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: If then you extended the Nurnberg laws by decree into the Eastern territories, that would be a little inconsistent with your own feeling about the matter, would it not?
A: Certainly not.
Q: May I hand you a copy of an Order of the 13 of May 1941 which as I read it has the effect of extending those laws into the Eastern Territories which was signed by you. That is the Prosecution's Document 1615, which we asked to have marked for identification as Exhibit 521, your Honor.
If your Honors please, If the Tribunal will permit me, I have had English copies of this and I thought they were here. I am advised that they are not in here now. I will furnish them. May I proceed and then furnish them to the Tribunal?
Have you examined that exhibit, Doctor?
A: Yes.
Q: Its signed by you as Acting Reich Minister of Justice, and Martin Bormann and Dr. Stuckart, is that correct?
A: Yes. There are two decrees on the same day.
Q: Yes. Section 3 provides for in the Annexed Eastern Territories the Act for the Protection of German Blood and Honor of 15 September 1935. That is what is known as the Nurnberg law, is it not?
A: Yes.
Q: That was applied to the Eastern Territories?
A: In regard to this decree, I would like to say something, if I may.
Q: Surely.
A: These two decrees of 31 May 1941; the first one is an order introducing it; and the second one is the Executive Order of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor. They have to be looked at together. As far as the basic question of the introduction of that law is concerned, the prosecutor has already spoken about my personal feelings. I shall leave them out of consideration for the moment. In regard to the question as to whether the Nurnberg Laws were supposed to be introduced, the following were the decisive legal sources:
First, here too the directives of politics which Hitler had issued; secondly, the political responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior as the central office for questions regardirg the Eastern Territories and the leader of the Party Chancellery.
The Ministry of Justice, in regard to these laws, participated only because the so-called law for the Protection of German Bolld and Honor by which Minister G Guertner was completely surprised at the time contained a penal regulation. If now, in accordance with the political directives, one had to introduce this decree, the penal regulation, of course, had to be introduced too, and from that resulted, of necessity, the signature.
Moreover, from the connection of these two decrees, it is, without doubt, apparent that the decree did not at all refer to Poles, and neither no matter whether they were Jewish or not; but it referred only to German citizens, and that they had to comply with these regulations was obvious.
Q. Thank you. I gathered from your answers on direct examination that you felt that you constantly had a struggle with Nazis of the type of Himmler and Bormann to keep the abusive judicial processes from getting out of hand. Have I stated it about correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. In Prosecution's Exhibit No. 248, which appears in the transcript of this case at page 2,241, there is a statement which says that in contrast to the three crimes which were punishable by death before 1933--- Exhibit 248, Your Honor -- in 1943 or 1944, I think it is, there were not less than forty-six such crimes under the Nazis. Would you say that was approximately a correct statement? ---From your experiences in the Ministry that it went from three crimes to approximately, let us say, to forty punishable by death?
A. This calculation is not quite correct, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. All right.
A. This figure forty-six is calculated quite correctly if the individual facts are combined as they are enumerated there. But the threats of death penalty for the individual crimes were sub-divided in such a way that, for example, in the case of high treason and in treason, I believe too, quite a number of threats of death penalty can be calculated and then one arrives at a considerable less figure.
Q. Yes.
A. But I believe that is not the decisive thing. The decisive thing is that a wrong picture results, for the following reason: One compares the three threats of the death penalty of the old time with the forty-five or forty-six, let us say, of the new time, and on any unprejudiced reader this must have an effect, as in these new cases, just as in the old ones, they were concerned with the absolute death penalty; but that is not so at all.
But if one regards the matter, there are four groups--cases of absolute death penalty, cases where there is a death penalty or prison term, where there is a choice; cases where there is a death penalty, or, if it is a minor crime a prison sentence; and cases where there is generally a prison term, but in more serious cases a death penalty. If one investigates those matters in that light, if one examines them in that way, one arrives at the result that the three threats of death penalty of the old time are confronted by about twelve in the new time, and among these belong very exceptional cases; as, for example, I may perhaps mention the motorcar trap law, the blackmail kidnapping law, theft from the metal and wool collection; and if one substracts these matters, too, then quite a different picture results in fact.
Q. Yes. Now , the Prosecution --- let me ask you -- I will withdraw that first. The fact remains that there was an increase in the death sentences and an increase in acts for which the death penalty was given during the time that covered your service in the Ministry, both before and after Dr. Guertner's death, from 1933 on; that is correct , isn't it?
A. I would like to say the following about that matter. As far as I remember, but I cannot rely on my memory completely, during the time when I was in charge of the Ministry, only the Law of 1941, in the case of dangerous criminals and sexuals crimes, a new threat of death penalty was pronounced. Otherwise, during my tenure in office there was no increased severity.
Q. In Prosecution Exhibit No. 249 there are official figures given and percentages of the death sentences for each one hundred thousand convictions. These figures indicate that the percentage in 1930 was seven per cent; that in 1934 it rose to twenty--five per cent; and that in 1940, which is the last year that is contained ,--
or rather, I am sorry, these are the figures of the death sentences per one hundred thousand convictions, not percentages; and in 1940 it had risen to one hundred-ten. That was during the period prior to the time that Dr. Guertner had died, but while you were with him; and as I understand you and he were fighting against increased severity of the penalty sentences; is that correct?
A. Yes -- well, that is to say no. Guertner fought in all of these matters, but Mr. Prosecutor, you are probably confusing the struggle with the offices outside the Ministry and the instigation for clemency as a whole. But as far as the administration of Justice is concerned, I did not take any part in these matters.
Q. Now, I believe that you testified that you could not resign, both factually prior to the beginning of the war, and, as a result of a decree or legislative act, after the beginning of the war; is that correct?
A. I expressed it about as follows: That before the war, for factually reasons I could not resign; and for legal reasons it was impossible after the beginning of the war.
Q. I think that is right. Would you mind elaborating a little bit on your statement and tell us what the factual reasons were before the war?
A. Hitler was of the opinion that he alone had to decide who had to fulfill a decisive task in the government offices, and that it was not up to the discretion of the individual civil servant to withdraw from that task. If one had referred to the Reich Civil Service Law, in paragraph 66 of which there was a right to resign, one would certainly not have been listened to.
Q. This was prior to the war -- the period you are talking about now?
A. Yes, that is what I was talking about.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Did you know or hear of Dr. Kurt Schmidt who was a member of the Reich Cabinet from the 30th of June, 1933, until the beginning of January 1935?
A Yes, of course.
Q I ask you whether or not he did resign in January, 1935?
A Mr. Prosecutor, first I can answer the question affirmative ly, but then I would like to add something.
Q All right, first he did resign? We are in agreement on that? He did resign?
A Pardon?
Q He did resign?
A Schmidt resigned.
Q All right now, go ahead. You want to explain that?
A But now I want to say something.
Q Yes. Yes.
A The question of the resignation of the then Reich Economic Minister, Schmidt, has been discussed with me already repeatedly, for example, before the IMT. Only one thing must be remembered: that is why Schmidt resigned. Mean tongues say that he fell ill because the loss of his large income in free enterprise seemed to him rather unpleasant. I certainly do not want to agree with that, but it is certain that Schmidt had a serious attack of fainting and thereupon stated that he did not feel that he was not strong enough anymore to take care of the affairs of the office. Unfortunately, I felt so well at the time that for myself this method could not have applied.
Q Was there an Eltz von Ruebenach in the Ministry during the time that you were in there prior to the war, in one of the Ministries of the Reich?
A Yes, he was in charge of the Reich Traffic Ministry.
Q Did he resign? And when?
A It is a little more difficult to answer that question because the story is not quite clear whether he resigned because he Court No. III, Case No. 3.wanted to or whether he resigned because he had to.
The conditions were as follows as far as I am informed about them: Hitler awarded the Golden Party Badge to all of the Ministers in a Cabinet meeting. On this occasion Eltz von Ruebenach before he accepted the Golden Party Badge made a reservation regarding the treatment of Catholic citizens. That led to a very violent discussion and a scene, and now one group maintains that Eltz von Ruebenach, who now did not receive the Golden Party Badge, thereupon voluntarily asked for his resignation and was granted this. Others, on the other hand, say that it was officially indicated to him that he had to ask for his resignation immediately.
I can only tell you about these two versions.
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. LaFollette -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for our morning recess. We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schlegelberger -- (To Mr. LaFollette) Will you pardon a question?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Certainly, your Honor.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Would you make just one matter clear to me? With reference to your power to resign before the war, which you said was impossible for factual reasons, was there any law or any decree which forbade you to resign?
A No, not before the war, your Honor.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Now, with reference to this Eltz von Ruebenach matter, can you place the year?
A I will have to think -- no, I cannot say it with certainty. It must have been 1938 or 1939, but I could not be sure of it.
Q If it was 1937 you wouldn't say that was wrong?
A It would be possible.
Q It was before the war?
A Yes, before the war.
Q And the resignation of Kurt Schmidt was in 1935, I believe you said?
A Yes.
Q Now, Kurt Schmidt is alive, is he not, as far as you know?
A I believe so, indeed.
Q And von Ruebenach?
A That I don't know.
Q Can you tell us whether Schmidt or von Ruebenach were ever placed in a concentration camp?
A I don't know anything about that.
Q If they had been they being rather prominent persons, some knowledge of it would have come to your attention, isn't that a fair assumption?
A I should assume so. I could not say any more about it.
Q Now, I think we can agree on this matter, and I won't have to introduce the document at all: You recall that on the 29th of July, 1946, you were cross-examined by Dr. Kempner in connection with your testimony for the Defense in the matter of the Reichkabinet being designated as a Defendant before the I.M.T. Do you recall?
A Of course, I remember it, but I don't remember the day.
Q You remember the cross-examination by Dr. Kempner?
A Yes, indeed.
Q The record I have here, and then if there is any question about it I will consult the German; but I believe you will remember. I don't want to take advantage of you. You were asked, "When did you come to the opinion that Hitler was a dictator and the whole thing had become a tyranny?" That question you answered, "I came to that conviction approximately in 1939." Would that be an accurate statement? Would you care to say that was your opinion?
A May I ask you to please put the question once more?
(Repeated by the interpreter.)
A Upon what question have I answered at that time?
Q I think I can get it for you in just a second.
(Transcript of record secured.)
I think you will find that in German on page 3, in German, Doctor.
A Yes.
(Transcript of record handed witness.)
Yes, I have found it.
Q I ask you now, is your answer to that question your opinion now, today?
A Yes, that is also my opinion now, today.
Q Would you be able today to fix the time in 1939 a little more closely than you did then? Was it early in 1939 or just about the time of the war with Poland -- or when was it in 1939?
A That came about gradually. That is, as soon as the Cabinet meetings were discontinued, the power which Hitler assumed in addition, to which he actually held, increased more and more, and naturally that expressed itself very strongly during the war.
Q Cabinet meetings were actually dispensed with even before 1939, were they not?
A Yes.
Q Now, way back in 1933, while Dr. Guertner was ill or away, you attended Cabinet meetings as his representative in the early days, did you not?
A I could, not say Cabinet meetings. As far as I remember, I only attended one single Cabinet meeting.
Q Well, there is a letter which I have here which may cover that exactly, dated March 6th, 1933, and signed by Dr. Lammers, in which he states that the Reichskanzler at that time -- that was Hitler, was it not?
A (Witness nodded yes.)
Q The 6th of March, 1933, was Hitler Reichkanzler then?
A Yes.
Q The Reichkanzler asked you to attend for the duration of the Reich Ministry of Justice, not only Cabinet meetings, but all Ministers' conferences; as near as you recall, pursuant to that invitation you attended only one, is that right?
A I remember only -- maybe I should state that more precisely; I remember one meeting which was continued the next day or the day after. That must have been a meeting which took place about the 20th or 21st of March.
Q 1933?
A Yes. And I remember that quite vividly, because the 21st of March was the so-called day of Potsdam, where Hitler and Hindenburg met at the Garrison Church at Potsdam. On the previous day, during that Cabinet meeting which I remember so well, I had had a rather serious conflict with Hitler, a clash, and a continuation of the meeting followed on the next day, where I rebutted the objections and reproaches that Hitler made to me.
Q Was the Enabling Act which denied civil rights discussed at that Cabinet meeting? As I recall, it was passed a few days after. Do you remember?
A I beg your pardon. I did not quite understand the question.
Q The Enabling Act which the Hitler regime passed, which abrogated the provisions for civil liberties, discloses, I think, that it was adopted a few days after the time that you fixed, the 20th of 21st of March. Was it discussed at that Cabinet meeting that you attended?
A Not to my knowledge, not to my knowledge.
Q Now, how long before the 1st of September, 1939, did the preparations for mobilization begin in Germany, if you remember -mobilization of the armed forces?
A I could not give you any information on that.
Q You don't -- did you have no information about the preparation for mobilization, Dr. Schlegelberger?
A You showed me the record before, the transcript of the International Military Tribunal. I did not finish reading it, but if I remember correctly, I was asked at that time whether in 1939 I expected the outbreak of the war, and I also gave an answer to that question. I should like to refer to that answer. It was like this: In the late summer of 1939 I intended to make a vacation trip, and I discussed that with Guertner, and he told me, "You can go away now, because there certainly will be no war at all". And I went on that trip and was surprised by the outbreak of the war. From that, you can see, I should think, that personally I did not believe there would be a war at that time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I want to say for the benefit of the witness, and for Dr. Kubuschok, the Court, that document NG 1513, which I shall want to have identified as Exhibit No. 521, is described an original letter dated 11 February 1942, from the defendant, Dr. Schlegelberger to Lammers, concerning Hitler's decree of 25 January 1942, for the further simplification of administrative procedure -- that would be exhibit 522, not 521.
THE PRESIDENT: What is 1513?
MR. LAFOLETTE: That is the NG number, your Honor, NG 1513. Your Honor, I have it here in my hand now, and I will send it up.
THE PRESIDENT: 522 is the exhibit number?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes. I am confronted with this situation which I want to state to the Tribunal, and Dr. Kubuschok, and the witness. The photostatic original of this is still being translated. There seems to be only one photostatic original or else it is the original which is being used in the translation here; therefore, I do not have the English, and a technical exhibit I do not have. I am advised from the information that I have that this document opens with the statement: "Even in connection with the preparations for mobilization I ---"
(One of the defendants, at this time, proceeded to lower the shade)
I will start again, "Even in connection with the preparation for the mobilization, I stressed the necessity of simplifying legal procedure to suit war time conditions." I would like to ask the witness if he wrote this letter, but I have only this mimeographed copy at this time, and I do not have an exhibit. If I may proceed, unless Dr. Kubuschok objects, I would like to proceed and furnish the original with the understanding that the cross-examination not be considered if I do not furnish the original. Dr. Kubuschok if there is no objections -
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead; unless he objects you can proceed without any explanation.
Q You have this mimeographed copy? The opening sentence reads, substantially in English translation as, "Even in connection with the preparation for the mobilization, I stress the necessity of simplifying legal procedure to suit war time conditions." This letter is dated February 11, 1942. In English of that statement, do you want to change your statement that you just made, that you did not know about the preparations for war?
A No, I do, not want to change it. I want to say the following with reference to this letter: Whether or not I signed that letter, I do not know. I ask to be permitted to stress the following; If the first sentence in this letter begins already with the mobilization preparations, I put emphasis, it does not mean "I" for the person who signed it, but "I" for the Reichsminister of Justice. That is the style in which the things were written in the Ministry. Had I written in 1942 that the Reichsminister Guertner, had I written about something the Reichsminister Guertner did in 1939, then I would also write already in the year 1939, I did that and that." meaning the Minister. From that version, therefore, one cannot draw any conclusions. Moreover, there are two things to consider. I doubt very much whether I had anything to do with these matters at all; these matters were designated as part of the preparations to mobilize, and which is known to exist in every country; and then, as a matter of course, had to be worked over. In 1938, that was the year of tension, I was out of my office for months because I had an accident and went to the hospital. I do not say that because I want to shirk any responsibility, but because I consider it my duty to inform the prosecutor about conditions as they actually were. That also the simplification of administration of justice is caused by the war is part of the preparation for mobilization because one had to expect shortages of personnel, that is clear to me.
Q If one anticipated a shortage of personnel during the war, then one must have anticipated a war; is that not correct?
A If one makes preparations for mobilization, then one always thinks of the possibility of a war.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you. I would like to have a notation made that the Prosecution's Exhibit No. 522, should -- or rather document NG 1513, should be indentified as Prosecution's exhibit 522, when it is subsequently offered.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be indentified as Exhibit 522.
Q Now, I think you testified that during the time you were in office you were constantly confronted with the attacks by Frank who was the head of the Nationalist Socialist Lawyer's League, and the Academy for German Law. This is the same Frank who was Minister of Justice in Bavaria prior to centralization?
A Yes.
Q Are you acquainted with the Prosecution's exhibits 17, 18, 19 and 20, which are in book 1-A, and consists of four speeches by Frank, have you read those speeches in the exhibit, in the document book?
A Probably, I did not read them, but I do not recall any more what they were about.
Q Exhibit 17, or excerpts from speeches made by Hans Frank on 23 October 1933 in which Frank says among other things, "There is no legal profession separate from the people as a whole. No, we only want a regiment of Jurists in the great army of National Socialists and we should be proud of the Fuehrer were to admit this regiment of Law forever amongst his ranks." It was published in the Deutsche Politik in 1933, apparently. Were you acquainted with the writings and speeches of Frank in 1933 and 1934?
A No, it was quite sufficient for me if I had to listen to him at times, but I did not read anything written by him.
Q When you listened to him were his thoughts on the administration of justice analogous to those which I have just read to you, those speeches which you listened to?
A I can only say that it is difficult to state whether they were similar or not and analogous. Frank wanted to make justice an instrument of a docile instrument of the party office, that was his aim.
Q And, you are acquainted with those speeches you heard prior to 1939, surely?
A Not from his published speeches, but from the addresses he gave to us when he came to the Ministry and asked us to support his cause. One gets the wrong picture if one believes that Frank, so to say, worked in a different geographical territory, and we just heard from him. Continuously he attacked us by way of visits in the Ministry, by speeches on occasions of festivities, that continuous pushing on his part, that was his method and he was quite capable to express his program in just a few words.
Q. Let me have NG--106. The Prosecution asks that Document NG--1061 be marked for identification as Prosecution Exhibit 523. That exhibit which you now have in your hands, Dr. Schlegelberger, is a letter signed by you on the 4th of December 1941, addressed to Dr. Lammers.
A. Yes.
Q. And in it, you see you are in agreement with the ReichsfuehrerSS and the Chief of the German Police on the subject matter of abolishing amnesties which were granted between 1918 to 1933 because you thought they were granted to too broadly even to traitors. Do you recall that letter?
A. I remember it now when I read it. With your permission, I should like to go on reading it.
Yes, I have read it now.
Q. Who was the Reichsfuehrer-SS and the Chief of the German Police? Was that one or two person, at that time?
A. No. That was one person.
Q. And who was it?
A. Himmler.
Q. So you were not always in disagreement with Herr Himmler?
A. Of course not. There had to be cases where one was of the same opinion, but I should like to say something in connection with this document. The letter says that in the Amnesty Laws of the years 1918 to 1933, especially in the Amnesty Law dated 1928; amnesty was granted even to traitors, and the sentences passed were ordered expunged from the penal register. Then I set forth that I was of the opinion that such a rehabilitation could not be justified, and that therefore, one had to re-enter these sentences into the penal register. In that connection I wish to state that I have explained yesterday, already, that in my opinion, treason is the most serious political crime that any one could commit; that the Reichsfuehrer--SS and Chief of the Police shared that opinion speaks for him. Moreover, I believe we saw during the late years that amnesty once granted would no longer be considered legally valid because the concept of things changed.
Q. But these were amnesties granted between 1918 and 1933 for acts committed between 1918 and 1933, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. You told me that you did not road Frank's speeches if you could avoid it because you had enough when you had to listen to it. Did you ever read Dr. Goebbel's pamphlets or documents?
A. No. I never read the pamphlets. From time to time, I read one of his speeches in the newspapers. I also had the opportunity to read some of it in the indictment, but not apart from that. Moreover, in any explanations I have already pointed out that some of these speeches by Goebbels which I have read were intended to have that undermining influence on the conscience of the judges and therefore were extremely dangerous.
Q. Now you testified rather extensively yesterday about the extermination of people under the Euthanasia program and you referred to the Prosecution Exhibit 384 which was Document NG-833. As I gathered, you stated that as a result of your efforts after Dr. Guertner's death, this Euthanasia program and the extermination of insane people was stopped shortly after you came in as Acting Minister. Is that a correct statement of your testimony?
A. I said that according to my information, that was stopped in August, 1941.
Q. Would you be surprised or would you have any explanation for a decision of a Berlin Court of Appeals on 26 August 1946 which sentenced two hospital officials to death for killing about 600 persons under this Hitler Order for Euthanasia? The records in this case showed that the killings were committed in 1943 and 1944. Do you consider that possible?
A. Here during my time in Nuernberg, I have been informed about these sentences. I can only conclude from that that during subsequent years when I was no longer in office, new Euthanasia measures were applied.